Charlie Hebdo

pblakeney

florerider wrote:

That would be brave, an Englishman going to Dresden and telling them not to give into to someone trying to change their way of life, especially through terror.

I don't think that you would have to be brave. I think that there will be a few "Charlies" there.
If anybody knows the consequences of fanaticism, it is the people of Dresden.

slowmart

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... death-cult

A more developed thought process for not publishing the offending images.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult

A more developed thought process for not publishing the offending images.

I have read the article and while well put, I disagree.
It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, in this Country as well as France to satirise the head of State, the rulers of the Country, politicians, celebrities, and religion. All religions.
Are we to ban all satire?
Religion offends me. What recourse do I have?

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult

A more developed thought process for not publishing the offending images.

I have read the article and while well put, I disagree.
It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, in this Country as well as France to satirise the head of State, the rulers of the Country, politicians, celebrities, and religion. All religions.
Are we to ban all satire?
Religion offends me. What recourse do I have?

Religion is probably the target most deserving of satire. As I have stated previously, some teachings are offensive, but as I am not driven by any god to exterminate any people that preach offence, I have to rely on other means.

ballysmate

pinarello001 wrote:

We have had racial conflict in the UK and the relationship between the public, the state and ethnic minorities has not always been a harmonious one.
What I fail to understand is the ease that the Muslims seemingly turn to fundamentalism and violence.
If we look at the various ethnic groups resident in the UK, none have turned to terrorism. A young unemployed, British Born Muslim who receives all the umbrellas of the state, still feels that he has to turn to extreme violence under a warped banner of religion!?
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't bomb hospital wards where blood transfusions are taking place, the Mormons don't throw stones at the sinners who shag outside of wedlock, the Presbyterian's don't attack patrons of public houses and the strict orthodox Sikh's don't burn down corner shops who sell cigarettes.
Whilst some can somehow explain why the disenfranchised turn to Muslim fundamentalism as the reasons, no-one can justify their means. If they took to peaceful protest in their 000's, people would probably sit up and take notice. Instead they go on Holy Wars, indulge in violence and post insidious and threatening videos.
There is no place for the barbaric, medieval protagonists and orchestrator's of this violence that they meter out on innocent civilians and in no way should they influence our culture of freedom and freedom of speech, our evolution in terms of equality and our value of life.
We should protect these values with fervour.

Could one cause be the lack of integration with the rest of the population. I accept that people have the right to live wherever and with whomever they wish and people of all creeds and beliefs tend to gravitate towards like minded people. They feel more comfortable with what they know. Hence the large predominantly Muslim areas in some of our large cities. As I said, their choice.
The problem arises when individuals start preaching hate and violence. It is easier to convince susceptible individuals that it is 'us against them' if you live in an enclave. Birmingham is not far from me and in some areas I can see how this sort of message could find fertile minds. The more insular a community, the easier it is.
People from the outside of these enclaves can tend to view the inhabitants as suspicious. Not saying that this behaviour is right, just saying that it happens.
British pensioners on the Costas tend to seek out people similar to themselves so the phenomenon isn't confined to British Muslims and the ex pat communities could be viewed negatively by the Spanish. Difference is that the provisional wing of the Darby and Joan club haven't declared war on anyone.

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult

A more developed thought process for not publishing the offending images.

I have read the article and while well put, I disagree.
It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, in this Country as well as France to satirise the head of State, the rulers of the Country, politicians, celebrities, and religion. All religions.
Are we to ban all satire?
Religion offends me. What recourse do I have?

To win the heart and minds we have to differentiate between the extremists and Muslims and accept they are different. Why then offend the latter to prove a point to the former. Look past at deploying emotive images and ensure the actions in Paris provide further daylight between an overarching description of Muslims.

The French have a much more deep rooted tradition of subversive satire and the audience of the publication in question was 60,000 which is hardly mainstream reading material.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult

A more developed thought process for not publishing the offending images.

I have read the article and while well put, I disagree.
It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, in this Country as well as France to satirise the head of State, the rulers of the Country, politicians, celebrities, and religion. All religions.
Are we to ban all satire?
Religion offends me. What recourse do I have?

To win the heart and minds we have to differentiate between the extremists and Muslims and accept they are different. Why then offend the latter to prove a point to the former. Look past at deploying emotive images and ensure the actions in Paris provide further daylight between an overarching description of Muslims.

The French have a much more deep rooted tradition of subversive satire and the audience of the publication in question was 60,000 which is hardly mainstream reading material.

You have addressed my point but not the follow up questions.
I will add a third, are Muslims to be treated differently to other religions?

ballysmate

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult

A more developed thought process for not publishing the offending images.

I have read the article and while well put, I disagree.
It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, in this Country as well as France to satirise the head of State, the rulers of the Country, politicians, celebrities, and religion. All religions.
Are we to ban all satire?
Religion offends me. What recourse do I have?

To win the heart and minds we have to differentiate between the extremists and Muslims and accept they are different. Why then offend the latter to prove a point to the former. Look past at deploying emotive images and ensure the actions in Paris provide further daylight between an overarching description of Muslims.

The French have a much more deep rooted tradition of subversive satire and the audience of the publication in question was 60,000 which is hardly mainstream reading material.

I think everyone realises that you can be a Muslim without being a terrorist. What you advocate though seems to be to give Muslims/Islam protected status. Would yo extend this courtesy to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc?
Why stop there? How about Scientology or even Jediism? Equally valid religions in my eyes. The Queen is head of Cof E, is she to be protected as well? Republicans wouldn't like that. The Pope? Shhhh Don't mention child abuse, less it offend.
With free speech comes the right to sometimes cause offence and the risk of sometimes being offended.

ballysmate

The perpetrators of the recent bombing in Nigeria weren't striking back at an alleged offence caused by anyone. They strapped a bomb to a ten year old girl and sent her into a busy market place.
People of violence don't need an excuse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olice.html

ballysmate

Caught a bit of a discussion program this morning hosted by Nicky Campbell (The Big Question?). A rabbi, Dr Jonathan Romain, said that all the world religions had humanism to thank for free speech as none of them advocates it anywhere.
A rather telling comment came at the end where someone said that the contributors, including himself, had been comfortable being able to mock others views and felt uneasy that he wasn't sure if that would have been the case with Islam.

bianchimoon

Ballysmate wrote:

Caught a bit of a discussion program this morning hosted by Nicky Campbell (The Big Question?). A rabbi, Dr Jonathan Romain, said that all the world religions had humanism to thank for free speech as none of them advocates it anywhere.
A rather telling comment came at the end where someone said that the contributors, including himself, had been comfortable being able to mock others views and felt uneasy that he wasn't sure if that would have been the case with Islam.

I read yesterday that a saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi had been sentenced to 10 years and 1000 lashes to be administered 50 a week for 20 weeks every Friday after prayers in a public flogging, for insulting Islam in his liberal blog.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... aif-badawi

pblakeney

bianchimoon wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Caught a bit of a discussion program this morning hosted by Nicky Campbell (The Big Question?). A rabbi, Dr Jonathan Romain, said that all the world religions had humanism to thank for free speech as none of them advocates it anywhere.
A rather telling comment came at the end where someone said that the contributors, including himself, had been comfortable being able to mock others views and felt uneasy that he wasn't sure if that would have been the case with Islam.

I read yesterday that a saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi had been sentenced to 10 years and 1000 lashes to be administered 50 a week for 20 weeks every Friday after prayers in a public flogging, for insulting Islam in his liberal blog.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... aif-badawi

Our friends, the Saudis. That is just because they have oil, isn't it?

slowmart

Far from it. The only way this is going to work is equality under the law.

As we have no comparable publications for subversive satire the point is mute and the threshold for what is acceptable is far higher in France than the UK and given some of the comments on this forum the distinction between Muslim and extremists seems to be blurred and ill-informed.

What is interesting is the typical western internalising and rationalisation of brutality inflicted on our citizens for causing offence to extremists. Radical islamists are the target of satirists in the middle east and it will be interesting to see if this material gets broader and sharper as the days go by.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/08/while ... he-over-of

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

As we have no comparable publications for subversive satire the point is mute..

No?

Wunnunda

Very clever of Private Eye to know those clergymen would be so relevant when they published Issue 22 back in 1962.... :?

pblakeney

More recent, just in case you thought they'd stopped poking fun at Christians.


and cross threading...
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/current_issue.php

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

As we have no comparable publications for subversive satire the point is mute..

No?

Any examples of the depiction of Mohammed? It's a soft porn version when compared to Charlie Hebdo.


.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

Any examples of the depiction of Mohammed? It's a soft porn version when compared to Charlie Hebdo.

It is simply proving the point that everyone is a target for satire, except for one group.
Why is that?
Is it right?

slowmart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5nigZzgf4Y

It's a question of threshold, as Bally suggests religion is a ripe target for satire, its just how far you push the content and no, no one or any religion should be overlooked when it comes to material.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5nigZzgf4Y

It's a question of threshold, as Bally suggests religion is a ripe target for satire, its just how far you push the content and no, no one or any religion should be overlooked when it comes to material.

I agree.
I would suggest that the cartoon below is less offensive than the covers above.
As has been suggested before, I think there are those who look for excuses for their actions but will suffice if none exist.

RDW

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult

A more developed thought process for not publishing the offending images.

I have read the article and while well put, I disagree.
It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, in this Country as well as France to satirise the head of State, the rulers of the Country, politicians, celebrities, and religion. All religions.
Are we to ban all satire?
Religion offends me. What recourse do I have?

Nowhere in the article does the author claim insulting satire should be banned. He is just making the case that his own publication, The Guardian, should not re-publish the cartoons. His argument is that, unlike Charlie Hebdo, they do not routinely set out to offend other groups in this way, and can't now justify singling out Muslims (not extremists, but Muslims in general) just to make a point. This implies that Muslims should not be treated as a special case in either a negative or a positive sense. Charlie Hebdo, like South Park, has a go at everyone. UK broadsheet newpapers don't use these tactics, and shouldn't start now. Responding with actions likely to isolate or alienate European Muslims may well be exactly what the terrorists, or rather those who actually planned the attack, intended:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... wrong.html

Charlie Hebdo was a convenient symbolic target, easier to get at than (say) senior politicians, but high profile enough to generate maximum publicity. Worse things are said about Islam every day on social media. If you need 'recourse' to have a go at any religion, put something controversial on Youtube or Twitter and you'll have a much bigger audience than a French satirical newspaper. The number of views* of our 'seemingly trivial things that annoy you' thread is now above the circulation figure for a typical issue of Charlie Hebdo.

* Though to be fair, that's probably the same 25 people obsessively returning to the thread to read every comment as soon as it arrives.

finchy

Let's not forget what the real aims of the Islamic fundamentalists are - they want to establish a caliphate with an Islamic government across the entire Muslim world, and a few parts of Europe (Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Balkans) which were formerly under Muslim rule. The attacks on the West started because they wanted to unite Muslims behind their cause and also to force the West into changing its policy of supporting Israel, the House of Saud, etc. Post-9/11 it was about forcing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

That marks out the Charlie Hebdo attack as a very different beast to previous murders, as its aim seems to be "revenge" after offence was taken. It's very difficult to compare it to other attacks by Islamic fundamentalists.

bernithebiker

Huge turnouts in all French cities today.

Went down to Quimper centre - couldn't get anywhere near the main Place, as so many people.

Reassuring to see that, as usual 99% of people are pretty OK really, it's the 1% you have to watch out for.

slowmart

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hezbol ... ons-387249


While condemnation isn't voiced the comment can only be welcomed.

ukiboy

On the subject of freedom of speech, charlie hebdo etc.. What are the views of people on this forum in regards to ALL freedom of speech? In Germany and Austria denial of the Holocaust or extreme right wing views are criminal offences...

In the UK certain viewpoints, if publicly espoused, could see the perpetrator arrested under section 5 of the public order act or various other laws of the politically correct establishment. Even if they don't lead to arrest, they can lead to dismissal from jobs, public condemnation and the label of pariah.

So should freedom of speech be available to all or just to the modern, trendy liberal elite and their followers?

ballysmate

ukiboy wrote:

On the subject of freedom of speech, charlie hebdo etc.. What are the views of people on this forum in regards to ALL freedom of speech? In Germany and Austria denial of the Holocaust or extreme right wing views are criminal offences...

In the UK certain viewpoints, if publicly espoused, could see the perpetrator arrested under section 5 of the public order act or various other laws of the politically correct establishment. Even if they don't lead to arrest, they can lead to dismissal from jobs, public condemnation and the label of pariah.

So should freedom of speech be available to all or just to the modern, trendy liberal elite and their followers?

Never quite understood why the denial of a proven historical fact should mark you out as a criminal. Moron yes, criminal no.
I am aware that s5 has been used to charge people for all sorts of behaviour, including calling a police horse 'gay'. :roll:
Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986 have been amended by section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 with the intention of allowing more freedom of speech.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/publ ... _offences/

finchy

Holocaust denial is banned in certain countries because of the historical baggage. They are very mindful that it should never happen again. I do agree with Bally and Ukiboy, though, that it should not be illegal. It's better to expose idiots than to make free speech martyrs out of them.

As for incitement to hatred/violence, IMO the only one of these two that should be banned is incitement to violence, as it impinges on the freedoms of others. Incitement to hatred is a law that is deeply illiberal, bans public expression of certain opinions (however unpleasant they may be) and could easily be misused. Let's say, for example, that a newspaper covered circumcision and called for it to be banned. Jewish or Muslim groups might use incitement to hatred legislation to shut the paper up.

verylonglegs

johnfinch wrote:

Holocaust denial is banned in certain countries because of the historical baggage. They are very mindful that it should never happen again. I do agree with Bally and Ukiboy, though, that it should not be illegal. It's better to expose idiots than to make free speech martyrs out of them.

I've always thought the same about laws which attempt to silence racists and bigots and fuckwits in general, I'd much rather they were free to speak up so we all know exactly who they are and what they believe.

finchy

Maybe we can just ban idiocy? :idea:

ugo.santalucia

For as long as the politicians keep using the word "evil", terrorism will thrive and flourish.

They don't seem to be concerned about the reasons why vulnerable minds get radicalised and choose murder and suicide as a way of life, but rather find someone to blame, some "evil" to eradicate and exterminate. What needs to be eradicated to erase the threat of terrorism are two things, both of which the goverments are responsible and accountable for

1) Ignorance via education

2) Social inequality